BX 

4-705J 

Wafts! 


} ■ ' <■'-: '■■ . '". - ;.■"'. • •■-,'■ '-;.". IV;; ;- :>V; v-' .■;:■.;. v-.;. 
j 






mSr 



' m£<M 



CC'CCCC 



*lc c c 

®cc c 



1 « 



-c c c cc • 

^.^M <cc Clcfe« 



«<T CC C(^^ 



*cc<3c< 

x<3CCC 

fccci^r 



^g cc 
5« err 

Cc? cc 



^L c«r< 

^ <^C 

V «L C «£C C 
pC «p«SC 
C <: *c: c 

cc cgacr c« 
c^c «c ;c«:: cc 



^ <^ " CS«r c ^ 
^ c <cy<r c cc 

*^c Cc«l c 

C<* ^ 



c «c O 






dr CC. < 

crcc C 

r(K. C 

*r rcC^ C 



. «S£ccL«r-. i 



CC€ CC 



£C>5= cs cc < 

C C CCC CC <a£ 
=*--C ^'C l |^l 



X" -*- — ^—^ ~-~ " > - > -- ^J 



# LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,! 



- ^r<;CC«C<^ 

Lcccrcccc? 

cc<r«ccc^ 

L^<<:ccc:<cc< 

< (««XVCCC 



| [FORCE COLLECTION.] | 

J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, f 



<c<c cc 
rccccc 
cc <cc c < 

x cccc 

ccccc 
c cc" c: c 



c <Ci 

c <c 

c cr 



<mm:<g: ct:c eel 

€IC OC gr« 
«£*«". c; /c- cc* 

■■■ c 5 §£^r 

c< cc. ^tcsiiccoc cc « 

c c CC ^CgcOC O ; <- ( S- T 

cc cxi. -ffe-^feK^c >'-c < 



c^ <Kd^c 
<3ECjCI£ 



C C7 

A c t< cj 

. ?,<c Cc; 

c \ < & 

! ■ c c^ 

\CC^X 
CCC C 
C CC c 

I CC 5 

I C- c • ' ( 
i^cf" 

ji cc 

CO 
c c 



' i cc c <C «c 

&/CC cc 

I ggrcr cc 

■ : fCC c^ 

:CC 'C'c g 
rc c. ' ^ 



c ccc c^cc 

^ Occ cc 
C CC CC^ 
C C>c c c 

c cc c cci 



C cc <^C C 
rccccicc^cr^ 

^ccccrCC<AC^cc < 



..C CCCc<3 
c C< ■ C CCa 

- C C c ccC 
c c ccc 

! C C <* C < 

' t CCS c < 

r C c , 

: c c 

£L< CCC 

:cC. Cc c ( 
«< CC'U 
< c c car 



CC €((CX4 
CC %<<CCC 
c<C C^(CC c 



^cccCC 
Uc£C< 

^CcCCCcc 

CS-C<3 

^^ o c c ' 
o CCC 5 
ret cl C < 



Cc ^- v c 



CcCcce 



&CZ CC 



CT C CC 
cc <r cc 



ir <_ cc 
c cc < 



M«l < «rcc C CC cC« 



c<ki 

j. «<C«IC 



^c3F^ 



cc 

- c *gr « < 



vcc CC.c<ssC 
ex<C «cjc; c cc 



<Cc. 


£ CC 


v- c C 


<r 


fiC <C 


c c C< 


«sc 


rcrr< 


ccc 


^KZj 


-•■ c c 


<; cc 


^BCL-C 


\ cc 


' C"<« 



:<Tcc - 
t «3tr ccc < . 
:<c<scc 
c <c <cc cc 
«: <c «c t 

^«c<z3c 

< <c 

<c - 



Tec c c< 

:- ccc c< 

x cc c e< 

err cc c c< 

t C C cc. 



ccstrc 

l^cjp! 

c «c e 
e<rTc 



cccc 



C ( ccc 

« < CC"C 

f ccc <«r 

cc C c 

cCC < 
ccc 
^cc <_ 

ccc cc 

icccc 

cc «r 



3< cc c ccc 
sll? ccc cc«C 

- CC C CCC Ci^ 

BgK c ccc ocz 

<C c CCCOce 
5c C cc cc CCC 
J? c ccc cfe 
S c c cc ccc 

SS- c <e cc cc 



ccscc 

CCBCC 



C C_ ^^ 

<.c c ,C c 

r<- cc C C C 

cc <--<; 



f -«^Cc 
1 c <83C7c: c 

c^rcfc^ 



C <2 
c ci 

c cc 



cc 


-'.- <c 


<c 


C 


cc 

CC' ""V 


Cc 


5JS C 

3CC 




3C-< 


' < 


>CC 


c< 



:^ cc c 

3 t-CC cc 

'XC"C< 

Cd'CTcc 

c cc;a 
CCCC^ 

CCCcc 

C <CCc 

CT<CC 

cccc 

ccczc 

< CCC 
: CKTjC 

' C CC 

c cc 

c ^ 
r CCC 

C <<: 
£ c 



^c c-- . 
C c ci^ 
^^c^ ccc jpt] 

^^^ cccr^rs 
^Occ cc Cxa^c 

5=^^:ccc ^g 
^c? ccc «cc 

S$ XC CC«: 
S.CCCCCC 

^«^ccc^ 



-C ; ( 


c 


c> < 


-C 


Cr 


Q 


w c. 


CC 


.<< 


cr 


^:c 


cc 


c 


cc 


c 


cc 


z 


cc 


C 


cc 


c 


cc 


c 


ex 


c 


<r c 


-■'- 



rcc 
czee 

©ccl 



■=-^C<2 

^C(C ; -; 
j^Ccrc 

CTtC - (! 

S'tC A 



c^rrfcW< 

:>CC CCicc ^CLCCC C 

rcc ccc c ^fecc « 

<x oc\cc.crc:c c 

,cc^.cc:.vC<^<aLcc 

^ SS r< -- ^S «3C_«C c- 
Sr-CCA CC cC<8K^i - 
^% -^-<«C ««3^ 
^ ^S «^ c OT3C ccc 

^ e^ c cc <x3zl ^cc 

*?^ 5S c cc ^»,ccc: 



L-. • <£r ec <3CC cCC 

»». "%C^CKtccc 
X -cC 

ccc < 

C'CC c 

l_ gk c cccc- ccc cr 

^cccc^ctr Cc 

^.. c c CCC ccC c 

ccrcior cc 

!T<CCC Cc< 

^^ t r C C3^« CCC ccc 

^....evecsr- ccc cere 

C cccc^TccXC cccc. 
C CCCC CT ccc ccc 

c; ccccjCTcccc cccc^ 
c c< c c c;. - cccc ccca. 

c < -v ccrcrcc cccc^ 
CC cmxr 



C CCC Ccc 
cCCjCTcctcC 

CCXTC3C 

:CCjC«c?Ca 

cciccc:^ 

C CC 'C' 
C re C - C ■-. 

CCCsC c 
c 



<ccc 

«TL c 



cc 



T< CCc 
_2 ^r: c 

z *cr <ccc 
cccc 
: ccc ^J^cc 
CC c c:^r^ 

cccr .ciccc 

rccc^ 

- r cc ccc c 



^ ^£: cc <S 

-^C'-CC Cc 

"HEccc cc< 

Cccc 
M^Ccc 

^CccSrS 

-C cc: ct 

*C cc ccc 
^XCCCCC C 
fE-CCC(C r« 
«T(CCCC c< 



• c «HC: c 
COKCCC 

<ar:ec 

-O^CCCc 

- ccc 

•C CCcv 

' c cc 

cc< 

CCC 3 

rc<c r 

r CC cr 



>^3^ ccc 

CCc ccc 
COr ccc 



ccc ecu :ci lacccccc 
cccc c C3t2: c ^cccccc 
cccc c c^ cc: <^cco c 

cCCCCCXX oc^icc 
CC<CCC C«jC c <C O^ctc ? 
" \ c c c c ^±£: c <«c_ oe:<^ c . 



c c_c<^ 
cc co 

CO 
C cc 






C r CO 

£ CCCc 
^CCC Cc 

cccc c 

CCCC C 
SCCd c 

cc cc c 

- Cc cc < 
CccCC< 

'- CCC cc 
'• ccccc 
' ccc c < 

■ CCCC C 
c ccccc 
c Cede C 

S^cc 



:: 1 
ccc 

C c 

CC 

m 



jeerc^g 
^ccrcric^cc 

CCCCcc 

f«pc 
ccocccc 

CC C CCCC 
cc Cc C dC 

^ccefc;c 

te. e *c c c c - — 
CC ccc 
c_e ccc 

ccccc cccc 
ce Ccccc- 




BHIPIL^ 



TO THE 



mMWxsnvw& 



BY WILLIAM VINCENT HAROLD, 

PASTOR IN ST. MART'S. 



'■ -; primi clypeos mentitaque tela 

Agnoscunt, atque ora sono discordia signant. 

*3Eneidos t lib. It 

Ma; perocch' egli disarmata vede 

La man nemica, si riman sospeso; 

Che stima ignobil palma, e vin spoglie 

Quelle ch 5 altrui, con tal vantaggio, uom toglie. 

Gerusalemme liberata. Canto 7. 





PHILADELPHIA: 



PRINTED BY BERNARD DORNIN, 



1822. 



A° 6 



A REPLY 



©ii^iiKDiLa© &&irm&sp© 



HEJOIJVDEE. 



SIR, 

IN my reply to your address, I confined myself to the matter 
which you thought proper to submit to the consideration of the 
public. I claim no credit for having convicted you of ignorance, 
insincerity and fraud. Your best reasoning on the subject, might 
have been put down by a child. Your Canon Law erudition, has 
become a subject of general amusement. The terms in which 
you qualify the Bishop's conduct and opinions, display such a dis- 
regard for his feelings, and such a contempt for his office, as must 
have disgusted every well-formed mind, and pained every Ca-* 
tholic heart in this country. The style in which you have pre- 
sumed to treat the clergy, is still more insulting and unjust 
" There are some respectable clergymen, who, while they admit, 
that a regular trial, hearing witnesses, and a written sentence^ 
are necessary for accused Catholic clergymen in Europe, contend, 
that a different regime prevails in the United States, which they 
call ,a missionary country. Truly, a very wise distinction, and 
highly creditable to the understandings of those, by whom it is 
©fftred; such gratuitous assertions are scarcely loorthy of notice" 
Bead address, p. 21. 



{ < 

In my reply, I merely convicted you of misstatement and pull- 
ed off your mask. But the public will see that I spared you, when 
I omitted to state, as I did, in pity to your character, that the 
opinions to which you allude, and which you dispose of so cava- 
lierly as gratuitous assertions, were answers given by me, to your 
knowledge, in the Supreme Court, and under the solemnity of an 
oath. HadMt been my wish to make our church-controversy a 
personal quarrel with you, would I have passed this atrocious in- 
sinuation without rebuke? 

I do not hold myself bound to struggle with a mind deranged 
by passion, nor to set a mark on all the foolery which a mind so 
deranged, naturally puts forth. This is a case for the faculty, and 
an ice-cap, I am told, is the ordinary remedy. Had you con6ned 
yourself in the address, to your usual mode of composition, to big 
words and great promises: Had you drawn on your mind for 
the only treasure it contains, adjectives in the superlative degree 
and offensive epithets, whose meaning you but partly understand: 
Had you done no more than what you had so often done before, 
alarm full grown children with lugubrious predictions of earth- 
quakes, which were to swallow up banks and bankers, I should 
have left the author and the prophet to indulge his dreams, and 
amuse the public, as long as it might please him to write, and 
them to laugh. You might have raged on your tripod, and inhaled 
the inspiring vapour, undisturbed by me. But you got into 
your hands, a book of some authority in our church, and happen- 
ing to hit on a few passages, which you persuaded yourself, and 
thought to persuade the public, were decisive on the case which 
you had undertaken to support, you proclaimed the precious dis- 
covery, and the laurel of triumph was a ready on your brow. 

I thought it due to truth, to guard the public against an impo- 
sition, and when I waited on you for the book which had led you 
into error, I could not but admire the self-contented expression of 
your countenance. This will account for the smile which has 
given you such offence. In my reply, I laughed a little freely 
at the discovery you had made, and I have reason to know that 
the public joined in the laugh. I have had some very flattering 
assurances from persons, whose praise is worth remembering, 
that I had put to rest Mr. Hogan's law question, and the Cathc- 



( 5 ) 

Jie Layman's pretensions. I had flattered myself that I should be 
spared any further annoyance, on a subject which you must have 
seen you were not prepared to discuss. I could not believe, that 
you would descend (if in you it be descending) to the vulgarity of 
petty slander. The medical aid which you called in immediate- 
ly after the appearance of my reply, and the quantity of acrid 
matter which you discharged on me in your private letter, might, 
as I thought, have relieved you from the bilious attack, and me 
from a rejoinder. But as neither physic, nor fasting, nor refuta- 
tion can lay the spirit which has taken possession of you, I must 
recommence my exorcisms, and hope, even against hope, for your 
deliverance. And now to your rejoinder. 

" It was my intention to make no public answer to the Rev. 
Mr. Harold's attack on me. But as accusations supported by re- 
spectable names, are too generally supposed to be admitted, un- 
less refuted, I altered my determinations, lest my silence should be 
misconstrued." Mr. Carey's private letter tome, ends with these 
words: " The publicity which will doubtless be given to it, (my 
printed reply to his address) seems to require as public a display 
of this, or iome other review of it. But to this measure, I should 
be sorry to be driven, and shall not adopt it without infinite re- 
luctance." As I am never affected by undeserved abuse, and 
thinking that Mr. Carey more than hinted, that his private letter 
should be given ( to the public, I sent it without delay to the edi- 
tor of the Democratic Press, with a request to have it published, 
It was recalled, when Mr. Carey declared that he did not intend 
it for the public. In a few days after, Mr. Carey, without any 
driver, got over his infinite reluctance, and gave notice of a rejoin- 
der by the Catholic Layman. I close with you on the principle 
laid down in the first sentence of that publication, and am willing 
to leave my accusations to stand or fall, as you may succeed oi 
fail in your promised refutation. The public will admit them to 
be well founded accusations, unless you redeem the pledge you 
have given to refute them. This is fair, and it is the avowed ob- 
ject of your rejoinder. You say "I have arraigned your motives, 
and you ask what have motives to do in the case? the matter is 
before the public, and awaits their award." This too, I agree to 
admit, though motives have something to do in the case. Neither 



( 6. ) 

the respectable name which you are pleased to allow me, nor ttic 
sinister motives which you complain I have attributed to you # 
can decide the real merits of the question. We and our contro- 
versy are before the public, and they will decide on the merits of 
that controversy, from our arguments, and not from our names or 
motives. 

The question at issue between us is, to a Catholic, most mo- 
mentous, and the public interest which it has so long and pow- 
erfully excited, made it essential to the safety, the honor and the 
Tery existence of the Catholic religion in these States, that it 
should be well understood, and satisfactorily explained. The case 
which brought us in opposition, involves more than one principle 
essential to our religion. If that religion be to you and to me a 
matter of importance, Mr. Hogan's case is important indeed. He 
rejected episcopal authority, which our faith professes to be di- 
vine — he derived his appointment and mission from the laity 
which our church declares to be heresy — he came into the 
church under the auspices of the lay trustees — the lay trustees 
claim the right to introduce him, and for more than a year have 
acted on that right — he admits the right, and seeks no better sanc- 
tion for the exercise of his ministry. If, in support of this cause, 
you advanced a single argument, which I have not refuted, you are 
justified in publishing a rejoinder to my reply — if I have misquoted 
your address, you are justified in exposing the fraud — if I have 
sought to convict you of a partizan spirit, on any other than your 
own evidence, you might be warranted in protesting against the 
unfairness of your opponent, and calling me again to the field. 
DBut, if your rejoinder should not be found to contain a single ar- 
gument in support of your address — if it should be found not to 
question a single observation of mine on the real merits of the 
question in debate between us — if you confess jour utter ignorance 
of the subject, on which you had undertaken to decide — if retreating 
from the centre of the battle, you skulk into a corner to play the assas- 
sin — if leaving your friends and their cause in the lurch, you evince 
no anxiety, but for your own safety, and direct your whole attention 
to plaster up an old sore which had been opened in the fight, will 
not the public see that your views, in espousing this cause, were, 
from the beginning, selfish? will they not pronounce hat you were 
"mpclled by vanity, or some other unworthy motive, and will not 



; 



( 7 ) 

the very men, whose cause you had undertaken to defend, replace 
the mask which I had torn off, and again deprive the world of 
your beauty ? 

I charged your address as utterly deficient in reasoning, and I 
established the justness of that charge by analysing and refuting 
whatever was tangible in your pamphlet. I succeeded even to 
your own conviction, and forced you to this confession which you 
make in the first page of the Rejoinder. u The address is a 
crude performance, as almost all hasty productions are, and in 
some parts very feeble." In many parts of your address, you de- 
scribe the controversy as one of the utmost importance, yet you 
hold yourself warranted to decide on its merits in a crude per- 
formance, a hasty production, and in some parts extremely fee- 
ble. Sir, no man with a Catholic heart or an equitable mind 
could have treated such a question in such a way. If you were 
publishing a new edition of Reading made easy, you would scarce- 
ly have hazarded the profits of the sale by a crude critique — a 
hasty panegyric, or a weak recommendation of that valuable pro- 
duction. But the public will admit the charge I advanced against 
your work when I accused you of bad reasoning, since that ac- 
cusation is not only not refuted, but distinctly admitted. 

I charged you with ignorance of the canon law — by which 
alone the question could be decided. You say in your Rejoinder, 
" To a knowledge of the canon law I make no pretensions. 
What I quoted was> as Mr. Harold justly states, index learning." 
And then you introduce the names of three great men, Messrs. 
Emmet, Webster and Binney, to demonstrate that' you do not 
know the meaning of the phrase index learning. Here again the 
public, by your own rule laid down in the second sentence of 
your Rejoinder, will receive the accusation as admitted, for, it is 
not only not refuted, but openly and candidly confessed. 

You say, " had he confined himself to his province of critic, 
and defender of his superior, he never would have heard from 
me in reply, for, I repeat, the controversy was far from desirable." 
Now, good sir, would you deny the critic the liberty of relieving 
himself and his readers from the dead weight of an uninterest- 
ing controversy, by laughing a little, when he finds great pro- 
mises and high pretensions supported by childish reasoning, awk- 



( * ) 

ward statement and index erudition? I am willing to believe that 
the controversy was far from desirable; but uiicontroverted med- 
dling, and partial statement, and left-handed mediation must 
have been delightful, if we may conclude any thing from your 
repeated eisays in that character. It never occurred to you all 
this time, that you were furnishing a subject for caricature, 
such as that species of waggery has seldom had the luck to ima- 
gine. The figure of a man proverbially irritable starting up be- 
tween contending parties the arbiter of peace. Even this might 
have had its moral effect, and, as you are not unacquainted with 
history, you probably anticipated it, You know when the Spar- 
tans would impress their children with an abhorrence for the in- 
temperate use of intoxicating liquors, they presented a drunken 
slave to their view, and calculated wisely on the impression 
Which vice thus exhibited seldom fails to make. 

I hinted that you were not an impartial mediator (a partial 
mediator is a masked one) and I demonstrated from the tone and te- 
nor of your address that there were just and sulid gruunds for that 
opinion. I have again perused each of your addresses from the 
commencement of this dispute until, as you state, " the friends of 
Mr, Hogan had arrived at the banks of the Rubicon," and I find 
you fanning the flame of insubordination in each of these publi- 
cations. The Rubicon brings before me another and a painful 
historical reminiscence. Crossing the Rubicon is another name 
for the fall of liberty, piety, order and good government, the tri- 
umph of ruffian force and unprincipled ambition. Yet when the 
friends of Mr. Hogan had crossed the Rubicon they found you in 
the camp an active, zealous adherent. The cause of your religion 
was an unpopular cause, and you wisely gave it up. 

To detail the dark and sanguinary story of English persecution 
was, in this country, a safe and popular theme, and I take the li- 
berty of quoting Mathew Carey's Vindiciae Hibernicag as evi- 
dence of honest consistency. " The professed object of the hypo- 
critical tyrants who framed this " ferocious code," as Burke ap- 
propriately stiles it, was to rescue the objects of its rapacity from 
ihe darkness of popish idolatry. But they might worship Jupiter 
Ammon, Juno, Venus, Mars, Bacchus, and.Apollo, with the Ro- 
mans; the sun with the Guebres, or Apis with the Egyptians; 



( 9 ) 

they might disbelieve in God altogether. Provided they forswore 
tTctnsubstantiation and the Pope's authority, they became pure and 
immaculate: their property and persons were secure; and under the 
forms and ceremonies of the law of the land they then acquired a right 
to rob and plunder the blind idolatrous Papists whom they had aban- 
doned." Can this extract make its way to your heart? or will you 
laugh at my simplicity for appealing to that heart, and directing 
your attention to the expulsion of your countrymen and intimate 
friends from the church of their fathers? Are the blind idolatrous 
Papists to be again robbed and plundered under the forms and ce- 
remonies of the law of the land, unless they forswear transub- 
stantiation and the Pope's authority, and is the bookselling compi- 
ler of the Vindicise Hibernicae to secure a lucrative popularity by 
raising up that spirit here which he damned in his native land? 
Is the no popery yell, which the blindest bigot in England would 
blush to utter, to disgrace the land of liberty and the city of the 
liberal Perm? No friend to America, to liberty, to religion or to 
decency would join in that chorus; and I warn you, that the no 
popery party will be severed from the communion of the freemen 
of America, when the story of the oppression of the Roman Ca- 
tholics of Philadelphia shall have circulated through these states, 
and passed beyond them. The constitution is sufficiently vigor- 
ous to recover from the shock which bigotry has given it, and 
the spirit of liberty is still strong enough to purify itself from the 
foul and filthy stuff which intolerance or speculation, may have 
mixed up with it, to favour their purposes. When the ferment 
produced by falshood and fanaticism shall have subsided, when 
the case and the actors shall stand fairly under the inspection of 
the men of America, public opinion, even should the laws be si- 
lent, will replace the Catholics in their church without forcing 
them to violate their conscience and abjure their religion. 

I charged you with wearing a mask, and you get into a pas- 
sion. But passion neither disproves the charge, nor even esta- 
blishes a presumption in favour of your candour and sincerity. 
If you were a man unknown to the world, such a charge might 
make you uneasy, and the soreness you evince would be natural 
enough. But you have so pushed yourself into notice, and kept 
yourself, for the last thirty years, so continually under the public, 

B 



( 10 

eye, that you are as well known to the community at large a* t& 
your own family. If you were conscious that you had, through 
life, delivered and maintained your opinions iairly, honourably, 
and impartially, you would laugh at the charge of lighting under 
a mask, and the public would laugh with you. But if you felt 
no such security, and found that I had supported the charge with 
something more than plausibility, I am not in the least surprised 
that you winced under it, and your anger is perfectly intelligible. 
I do not mean to claim a patent for the discovery, as I cannot 
prove it tm be original. I am told your Olive Branch was a mask, 
and pronounced by competent judges a very awkward one. I 
should like to know the opinion of Mr Adams on the subject. 
You have used his name to recommend one of your works, and if 
you think any thing might be made by sending out the Olive 
again, the sanction of that name would be specially useful. It 
would remove all suspicion* that a snake was coaceaM. in- th& 
branch, as that venerable patriot is proverbially honest. 

In the second page of your Rejoinder you say, " The detail of 
the errors of both parties, according to Mr. Harold's logic, has 
produced an effect directly the reverse of what I expected or in- 
tended. This is most extraordinary.'* This, sir, is in the old 
way, and therefore not at all extraordinary to me or to the public. 
I gave my reasons for the effect produced by your addresses. 
These reasons you pass unnoticed, but the public has not. I did 
not say that your detail of the errors of both parties produced an ef- 
feet directly the reverse of what you expected f or intended;* I hint- 
ed the, very reverse, I proved that this detail produced division 
and not reconciliation. And although I did not presume to say 
that such was your intention (for that is known only to yourself 
and the searcher of hearts) I proved that a man so intending 
could not have pursued a course better calculated to produce 
sueh an effect And how do you defend this new style of medi- 
ation? " I believe there is not a man in the nation, who would 
not admit, that in all controversies whatever^ the surest means of 
reconciliation are, to convince each party that it has sinned.' 1 I 
will hazard the assertion, that such a sentence as this has seldom 
been written by a full grown man enjoying the use of reason. But 
that a professed author should offer such a specimen of flat absu?- 



{ n ) 

<&ity to an intelligent people is so strange, that it will look like 
practising on public credulity to affirm, that it may be seen in the 
second page of your Rejoinder. So, sir, in all controversies what' 
ever each party must have sinned. You should have informed us. 
$iat you were about to form a new sect, so passive and unresist- 
ing, that even self defence is prohibited. No ! my gentle layman \ 
tins is being too good. This ultra non-resistance will not do in 
these bad times. 

There are controversies, literary, religious, national, and indi- 
vidual, in which both parties may not have sinned, and, of course, 
cannot, without an unreasonable stretch of power, and an origi- 
nal system of necromancy, be convinced of having sinned. The 
men of this nation, so far from admitting this principle, will 
laugh heartily at the Irish diplomatist, and begin to wonder how 
«uch a man could nave ever ventured to put his name to a book. 
** This is so evidently die dictate of reason and -common sense as 
to be obvious to the meanest capacity." Ah! sir, these people of 
meanest capacity will soon begin to take the measure of yours, 
unless you give up the business of writing. I shall take the liberty 
of submitting to you my notions on mediation, and it can do you 
no harm to reflect on them before you offer yourself again as an 
unbiassed arbitrator. To assume that any party is wrong, and not 
be able to prove it, is not common sense. To act on such an as- 
sumption is not common justice. To offer mediation on such an 
assumption is not common modesty: it is what is weH expressed 
by a word in our language which I will not use. 

In the third page of your Rejoinder you say, 44 Had I been dis- 
pos2d, I could have employed the same miserable weapons of sar- 
casm and sneer against Mr. Harold, as he has done against me. 
He is as vulnerable in that respect as most men. His overbear- 
In " spirit — his thirst of the mitre and crozier — his journey to Bal- 
timore to force the trustees to raise his salary— and more than 
all the shocking contrast between the rudeness of his treatment 
to Dr. Egan and his present knight errantry in defence of Epis- 
copacv would furnish ample materials. But I scorn such a career. 
1 leave it open to the Rev. Priest." You see, sir, I quote liberally, 
and I do so because I feel that the ravings of an angry and ma- 
lignant man cannot affect me, though I neither pretend to be in» 



( 12 ) 

vulnerable nor faultless. In my reply to your address, 1 confined 
myself to the very letter of a publication printed by yourself 1 ex- 
posed your deficiency in reasoning — laughed when you were ab- 
surd — sneered a little when you had gone beyond your depth: and 
for this innocent amusement you force me to swallow a mitre and 
crozier, at the risk of being taken by the good people in the back 
country for a tippler, should your report ever reach them You 
send me to Baltimore — and more than all you are shocked at my 
defence of Episcopacy, because, as you say, I treated Dr. Egan 
with rudeness. This is a lame rejoinder to my reply, and if it 
were only lame I should not notice it, for that might be the natu- 
ral produce of the author's brain. But I shall prove your Rejoinder 
to be malicious as it is lame, and false as it is malicious This is 
notary first defence of Episcopacy, and I shall make the Catholic 
layman feel something else than scorn for the Rev. Priest. " You 
have confined yourself to a few plain facts, from which you have 
drawn fair deductions." I shall convict you of having invented 
a few falshoods, and again prove you incapable of drawing fair 
or rational deductions from facts or principles. 

" Among the most extraordinary circumstances attending the 
affair is this. The chief, indeed almost the whole of the facts 
adduced against Mr. Hogan by Mr Harold and the pseudo Epis- 
copalian, are derived from the writings of the Catholic layman, 
who is denounced as an active partizan of the first gentleman." 
Sir, you are destined to shine in every science, and whatever you 
toucb you improve. We may soon expect " rules of evidence" 
by M. C. and this precious sample of your genius for that branch 
of the law proves how safely you may give your name in full to the 
first edition. The old practitioners used to attach some conse- 
quence to the admissions of the adversary. If they found him 
sufficiently liberal in evidence to convict himself, they took him 
at his word and seldom travelled beyond it. The Episcopalian 
and myself were replying to your address. It w T ould have been 
itr proper to accuse you of having filled it with false statements. 
We took the facts on your credit. No one could suspect you of 
inventing stories injurious to Mr. Hogan. The general belief was, 
and is, and will remain, that you lean to the side of that gentle- 
man and his adherents. Wc had no right to question your vera- 



( 13 ) 

city when you detailed the history of his transgressions. We fol- 
lowed you step by step. We argued from the facts with which 
you supplied us. And when you find your cause upset by your 
own showing, you stare like a somnambulist with open eyes that 
see nothing, and call this " the most extraordinary circumstance 
attending the affair." Sir, the public will discover, by the new 
light which you throw on evidence, something more extraordinary 
which cannot long be kept a secret. 

In pages 3 and 4 of the Rejoinder you state, " Mr. Harold de- 
nies that I have sustained the censure I have passed on the terms 
of the Bishop's rejection of the application of a respectable por- 
tion of the congregation for the removal of the suspension of Mr. 
Hogan. I once more resume the subject, as it is a vital one in 
the present question." The public will naturally conclude from 
your resuming the discussion, and holding out the point as of vital 
importance, that you mean to put forth your whole strength in its 
defence. We shall see how you succeed, and for the gratification 
of the public, we shall extract every word you have written. You 
had time to reflect, and cannot call your Rejoinder a hasty pro- 
duction. And now for the feats of the " giant refreshed." u A 
clergyman had been guilty of petulance and contumacy. His fa- 
culties had been suspended. Application was made for his resto- 
ration and the Bishop declared" that his acquiescence in the re- 
quest would produce the worst possible effects and consequences 
— effects which would confound and disturb the church more than 
a total schism in the congregation, which would be merely local, 
but my (the Bishop's) deviation from duty, by allowing myself to 
be led astray on this occasion, would unhinge the hierarchy, un- 
dermine church government, destroy subordination and subvert 
f* all rule and order in the church, here and elsewhere throughout 
the United States." 

" Suppose for a moment that Mr. Hogan had been reinstated 
after a very serious censure, and suitable acknowledgment of his 
offence, and a pledge of proper conduct in future, is there a man 
in his senses, who will say, this order of things would confouncl 
and disturb the church more than a total schism in the congrega- 
tion? Doubtless, a negative reply is on every tongue. Could such an 
event unhinge the hierarchy? undermine church government, de- 



stroy subordination, subvert all rule and order in the church here 
and elsewhere in the United States? this is like comparing the 
village of Chester to the City of London, the Schooly moun- 
tains to the Cordelleras. Surely these assertions are mere gra- 
tis dicta, wholly incapable t)f proof. Would the restoration of 
Mr. Hogan entail on the Bishop, the necessity of repeating the 
same condescension in all future similar cases, or even in a sin- 
gle case, if he did not think proper? certainly not. As well might 
we say that the pardon of a single offender or the remission of a 
single fine by an executive magistrate would oblige him to pardon 
all the offenders, to remit every fine. In truth, the assumptions 
are so extraordinary and so extravagant, that the objections did 
rsot require to be sustained by argument." 

Thus ends the resumed discussion of a vital part of the subject, 
and if the reader can endure the intensity of light, which has 
fallen on him, he need not envy the eagle his eye. The illustra- 
tion of Chester and London, the Schooly mountains, and the Cor- 
delleras, is irresistible. But, good sir, you need not have taken all 
this trouble, for, with the exception of Jhe Schooly Mountains and 
the civil magistrate, the whole extract from your Rejoinder may 
be found in your address and is disposed of in my reply. I pro- 
test against a journey to the Cordelleras and perhaps if I got there 
I might not be able to discover the likeness between the Mountain 
and the Canon Law Case. But as the executive magistrate is a 
domestic animal, I may without any violent stretch of imagination 
take a view of his attributes, and bring his character to bear on 
the case before us. The remission of a fine, or the pardon of an 
offender, may be a good deed in him, whose duty it is, to execute 
{he laws in justice and in mercy. 

It may also be an act of great weakness, immorality, cruelty and 
injustice. If a magistrate should be found through fear or favour, 
to deal out his decisions whether of punishment or remission, the 
knowledge of such weakness may lead to incalculable evils. If 
instead of holding the scales of justice steadily in his hand, that 
hand should be seen, even in one instance, to tremble, virtue may 
tremble too, and guilt may be fearless. If a jury, when recom- 
mending a criminal to mercy, should threaten the judge with star- 



( 15 ) 

ration, or any other evil, as the consequence of his refusal, yosu 
would not like to leave your life, or liberty, or prosperity, to the 
decision of that magistrate if in such circumstances he extended 
pardon to the criminal. You may discover Dr. Conwell's case 
in this. If a magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, respects 
any other voice than the voice of justice, if he listens to any other 
command than the dictate of his conscience, he is a wicked man. 
A judge represents on earth the justice of the Deity, relaxes the 
rigour of the law, and extends mercy not to menaces but to prayer* 
Now, sir, a Bishop is a magistrate and the highest magistrate 
known to our church government. If his decisions can be evea 
suspected to be made under the influence of tear or of favour^ 
what evils must not such an impression make on the minds and 
hearts of those whose best interests are committed to his judgment? 
If the arrogance of faithless men or the yell of a depraved rabble 
could" force him to do an act condemned by his. conscience, would 
you send him to wash his hands like Pilate and profess himseM* 
innocent of the just man's blood. Those who view all religion 
as, mockery, will laugh at that salvation on which they set no va- 
lue. A Bishop is the judge of something more precious thaa 
blood, and if you and your friends were wise, you would leave 
him to the peaceful exercise of his spiritual magistracy. He is 
answerable to God for the souls placed under his jurisdiction, and 
in providing for their safety, he cannot act in subserviency to the 
to the ways or wishes of this world, if he seriously believes in 
another. Dr. Conwell's determination regarding Mr. Hogan, if 
it be the result of conscientious conviction, entitles him to respect, 
That he has suffered every indignity which malice could devise^ 
or baseness could execute, for persevering in that determination^ 
and is ready to suffer until death, proves that he is sincere. This 
base and merciless persecution may bunt him to the grave, bult 
infamy will cling to every name connected with it. 

You assert that the evils which he anticipates from yielding to 
the menaces of Mr Hogan's adherents, are " so extraordinary 
and extravagant, that your objections to his opinions did not re*> 
quire to be supported by argument' 1 I fear, sir, you over-rate 
the authority of your name, when you fancy it may stand as a 
substitute for argument. You had twice laboured to pump up 



C » ) 

something like reasoning against the Bishop's proceeding, and 
tried it twice in vain. The cistern was cracked and dry, and 
nothing came up but wind. The ditto repetition of extravagant, 
extraordinary, &c. will not do. You will tempt the people to 
read his letter and your address, and I tell you the comparison will 
humble you. His letter will be found to contain sound princi- 
ples, and good sense, and unexceptionable reasoning, expressed 
in terms becoming his duty and his station. Your commentary 
on that letter bears the marks, which characterise every thing 
which has come from your pen. It is turgid, assuming, utterly 
deficient in mind and in manners. Should you attempt for the 
third time, " to resume the subject, as it is a vital one in the pre- 
sent question," let me advise you to call other witnesses than 
" Chester and London city, the Schooly mountains and the Cor- 
delleras." 

I have been a good deal amused with your critique on my re- 
ply to the famous address. The public will not fail to remark^ 
how carefully you avoid my arguments against the cause, which 
you attempted to defend, and which, in your rejoinder, you aban- 
don to its fate. Your whole attention appears to be engaged by 
a few ludicrous allusions to the peculiar character of your style, 
and reasoning, and the unlucky introduction of your mask, and 
velocipede. This is bad policy, and may lead the world to sup- 
pose, that you think too little of your cause, and too much of 
yourself By evincing such soreness you may discover your ten- 
der points to some future opponent, who may play on them with 
a wantonness, which I am not disposed to indulge. I did not 
travel out of your address, to look for matter for argument or for 
laughing. Those who give you credit for talent, expected to find 
in your rejoinder, a refutation of the arguments advanced in my 
reply, and, though I am not one of them, I did think that some- 
thing in that way would have been attempted. This was the na- 
tural course which the controversy must have taken, had not your 
mind been utterly resourceless. 

But what you wanted in understanding, you made up in memo- 
ry, and answered a discussion on canon law with an old story of 
my dispute with the trustees in the year 1812. Even this pal- 
try weapon you manage like a bungler. There was, however, 



some generalship in your plan. You found that the gentlemen 
with whom I differed on that occasion, are now my warm friends, 
and among the firmest supporters of our common religion. By 
reviving this long forgotten dispute, you flattered yourself that 
you could divide us again, and thus give to your party, an advan- 
tage, which they vainly sought in your cw crude" address. Your 
design was too thinly diguised, and every one saw through it. I 
do not know that I was ever suspected of avarice. I have never 
been accused of that vice. I feei very little anxiety on money mat- 
ters, and if I did, I should be at no loss to find a situation more fa- 
vourable to such views than the one in which a sense of duty has 
placed me. My salary, in the years 1809 and 1810, was, exclu- 
sive of my board, 200 dollars a year. Doctor Egan and Mr. 
Rossiter received no more. The remainder of the income given 
to the clergy by the trustees of St. Mary's, was expended in the 
support of a large and expensive family then residing in the par- 
sonage house. In the year 1811, matters were differently and 
more satisfactorily arranged. Each of the pastors received 800 
dollars a year, and each gave, from that sum, what was found 
sufficient for the common expences. I was called to Baltimore 
by Dr. Carroll to preach at the consecration of Dr. Cheverus, 
which took place on the first of November 1810, and this you 
must have known to be the object of my journey. If Mr. Ros- 
seter asserted that I intended to abandon the church he did so 
uncommissioned by me. The same implacable spirit, who rules 
the storm in St. Mary's Church, commenced in 1812 the work 
which he has now brought to perfection. He then succeeded in 
his object, and it will not be the fault of the Catholic Layman, if 
he does not succeed again. 

I do not know whether I should blame you for introducing the 
name of Dr. Egan into your rejoinder, and placing him, in these, 
transactions, in seeming opposition to me. You may not have a 
mind capable of perceiving the gross indelicacy of such a pro- 
ceeding. How must your vanity have been wounded, and how 
unequal must you have felt yourself to carry on this controversy, 
when you can stoop to the cowardly artifice of calling me to con- 
tend with the dead ! But if I had no moral feeling in my breast, 
instinct itself would recoil from this unholy conflict, to which you 

C 



{ « ) 

invite me. I revere the memory of Dr. Egan. I knew his ex- 
cellent qualities. On the question to which you allude our opin- 
ions were, for a long time, the same. He was induced to change 
his, while mine remained unaltered. I deprecated, and will 
ever deprecate, the employment of secular influence in a spiritual 
government. The Bishop, on that occasion, acted on what he 
conceived to be the better view of the case, and I resigned my 
place in his diocese. Time and experience have only served to 
confirm me in the opinion which I then entertained. You either 
do not know, or you affect to mistake my character, when you 
state, that " I was disappointed, astonished and dismayed, when 
Dr. Egan accepted my resignation." You state what is not true 
when you say " that I was not molested with solicitations to re- 
sume my functions." It is notorious, that a deputation from Phi- 
ladelphia, with 534 names signed to a petition to that effect, wait- 
ed.on Dr. Carroll, to induce me to return, and that I declined ac- 
ceding to his request on the principle which impelled me to re- 
sign, and which I could not sacrifice to expediency. But perhaps 
you mean that I was not solicited to resume my functions under 
the auspices of the lay trustees! If that be your meaning, my only 
answer is, that the board was then a catholic one, and they knew 
me to be, a catholic clergyman. 

In three days, after 1 had resigned, I proceeded to Baltimore, 
lest my presence in Philadelphia might seem to countenance the 
loo strong expression of regret, which my resignation had drawn 
from almost the whole congregation. I remained in Baltimore for 
six weeks, during which time, I studiously avoided all interfer- 
ence in the affairs of St. Mary's church. It answered your pur- 
pose of defamation to represent me deeply engaged all this time in 
carrying on an active electioneering canvass in Philadelphia, and 
for that purpose, paying domiciliary visits to the chief members 
of the congregation, in some cases, four or five times to the same 
individual," and yet "you pledge your honour!" 

I received information about the fifth of April, 1813, that a 
ship was advertised in New York to sail for Madeira, and would 
afterwards proceed to Liverpool. This was the only opportunity 
for my return to Europe, which presented itself since the 2 1st of 
February, the day on which I resigned. The war had been de- 
clared and there was no direct communication with any part of 



( 19 ) 

the British dominions. I engaged my passage immediately, left 
Baltimore on the 13th of April, remained but one day in Phila- 
delphia, to pack up my books, and proceeded to New York, where, 
after a few days, I embarked for Europe. The election for trus- 
tees in that year, was on the 20th of April, and on that day I was 
in New York. It answered your mean purpose of defamation to 
represent me as regulating the whole of the proceedings of that day, 
when you must have known that, for more than six weeks, pre- 
vious to the election, I was in Baltimore, and on the day of the 
election, in New York. And still "you pledge your honour!!" 

You proceed in your plan of defamation. " Now, reader, ob- 
serve, this was the state at the time of the departure of the writer 
of the Reply — although, unhappily, in the face of probably 1500 
people, he lately declared in the pulpit, that he had left the con- 
gregation in peace and harmony! and hoped to find them in that 
state at his return. On this point, I might — and were I disposed 
to treat Mr. Harold one half as cavalierly as he has treated me — 
1 would make a long and severe comment — but I forbear, and sub- 
mit the naked fact, for public consideration." I do not know, 
that I am taken for a simpleton, and I leave it to the public, if 
any other than a simpleton could have made such a declaration, 
as the honest and honourable layman states me to have made in 
the pulpit of St. Mary's. That the congregation was not in peace 
and harmony when I departed from them, is a matter of public no- 
toriety, and will any rational being bring himself to believe, that I 
addressing this same congregation in my sober senses, could make 
the declaration imputed to me? how could I hope to find them in a 
state of harmony at my return, when it is known to the layman, 
and to the entire congregation, that I was sent for by the Bishop, 
in the mere hope, that my return and exertions might contribute 
to bring back the schismaticks to the communion of the church? 

Had I no other means of convicting the Catholic Layman of an 
attempt at defamation foolish as it is base, these presumptions 
would have been sufficient for the purpose. But it must have been 
known to the Catholic Layman that I made no such declaration. 
Some passages in my Sermon, on the occasion alluded to, had 
been strangely misrepresented; and as it was introduced into one 
of our Church causes in the Supreme Court, I was advised by our 



( so ) 

lawyers' to produce the manuscript copy of the sermon, as the most 
effectual means to correct these mis-statements. 1 did produce 
the manuscript immediately, put it into the hands of the lawyers, 
on both sides, and deposed on oath, that the passage alluded to by 
the layman, was delivered by me, as it is found in the manuscript, 
and these are the words: "To have found you, as you once 
were, the most distinguished Catholic church in this country, 
distinguished for peace, for piety, for charity, for every qua- 
lity which renders men respectable in society and acceptable 
to heaven., this would have left me nothing to desire." Compare 
these words with the statement in your Rejoinder, and then 
pledge your honour!!! I tell you, sir, the value of that pledge is in 
a fair way to become as proverbial as the goodness of your tem- 
per, and the soundness of your understanding. 

To convince the world that you were no mask, when you of- 
fered yourself as an impartial mediator, you hasten to correct 
what you call an egregious error in one of your statements. " In 
my last address I committed an egregious error on this subject* 
having stated that the invitation (to the meeting) was confined to 
the friends of Mr, Hogan alone, whereas the call was a general 
one, as appears from the Democratic Press of Dec. 13th." That 
indeed was an egregious error. The friends of Mr. Hogan alone! 
what an uncharitable, excluding, antichristian invitation that 
would have been! and how, in the name of variety, could you 
have expected to collect a meeting composed of those only, who 
were friends of Mr. Hogan alone? my good layman give up 
the business of writing, for, be assured, your vocation is not' 
in that way. But it appears the whole congregation was called, 
and this, you exultingly say, " makes ' the case incomparably 
stronger." Who will not admire this zeal for the case, and how 
plainly does it make out your claim to impartiality? the congrega- 
tion of St. Mary's consisting of some thousand was called to so- 
licit the restoration of Mr. Hogan, and, if you have not com- 
mitted another egregious error, that call was answered by no more 
than 250 names Such is the statement in your famous address — 
do you think this makes the case incomparably stronger? any other 
man than your reasoning self would see, that it makes it incompa- 
rably weaker. 

w * At this early stage of the affair, say at the time of the above 



( 21 ) 

meeting, I believe, the majority of the congregation were attached 
to Mr. Hogan:" what? a majority of that congregation, who, ac- 
cording to yourself, had, but three days before, " expressed their 
dissatisfaction at his conduct so decidedly, that there was scarcely 
a dissenting voice in the congregation." Bemember the 250 and 
permit me to remind you, that a good memory is a very necessary 
article for a certain description of persons. By way of weakening 
the effect of numbers on the other side, you add in the same sen- 
tence, " and of those who supported the Bishop, a considerable 
portion were led to that course by their respect for episcopal au- 
thority." What a drawback on the value of their adhesion ! so, 
sir, a motive springing from a principle which every Catholic re- 
veres, a motive detached and abstracted from private and personal 
regard, an attachment neither obtained by intrigue nor impelled 
by passion, a motive purely christian and disinterested, a respect 
for episcopal authority tends, in your opinion, to neutralize the 
force of numbers on the Bishop's side. How difficult it is to 
elicit the truth from you or the party! every sense, moral and phy- 
sical appears to be affected by the spirit which you have all im- 
bibed. Poor Mr. Bazeley cannot, if you gave him a world for 
it, discover more than three or four going to St. Joseph's — Ask 
Mr. Strahan, by way of conversation, who advised the bringing 
up of the Bishop and his Clergy to the 'Squire's Office, and he will 
tell you in the simplicity of his heart, " I talked it over with 
Messrs. Ashley, Leamy, Sullivan and others, at Mr. Ashley's 
house. Put the same question to Mr. Ashley, merely to gratify 
your curiosity, and he declares he knows nothing about it. Give 
up this party, or they will destroy your taste for historical writing 
and turn you into a poet. 

You next amuse the public with a long and doleful tale of your 
abortive negociations, the first part ending in 1814 — the second 
commencing in 1820 with address No. 1. "which you distributed 
gratis to the congregation." Your just notion of charity prompts 
you to conceal, that you distributed gratis 86 copies of your last 
long address: but this liberality should be known, if it were only 
for the sake of good example. It may induce others to go and do 
in like manner, and the ignorant will be instructed. You express 
something like astonishment at the bad success of No. 1, and you 



( M ) 

take a truly philosophic view of society in a state of discord, which* 
you aptly and elegantly compare to a cracked and incurable 
pitcher — see Rejoinder page 29. Address No. 2, " equally inef- 
fectual." Address No. 3, " equally ineffectual with all the rest." 
Then came the great Address to the Bishop, Clergy and Congre- 
gation, which was not wholly ineffectual, for it proved the bad- 
ness of your cause, and the insincerity of your mediation. You 
inform us that, "you were early appointed a member of a large 
and respectable committee of the friends of Mr. Hogan, and that 
you declined serving." Do you think, or do you fancy the public 
will think, that the friends of Mr. Hogan had a doubt, as to your 
sentiments on the case, when they appointed you a member of the 
committee ? You requited this honourable proof of confidence 
with the best services you were capable of performing, though I 
cannot say you gave them your countenance, for that was co- 
vered. 

If you do not know why all your attempts at mediation have 
been disregarded and proved ineffectual, you present as striking 
an instance of self-delusion as can well be imagined. Trace 
back the history of your mediation from this day to the year 1812, 
including the Olive Branch mediation, and you will find that you 
were uniformly the decided friend of one of the parties, between 
whom you pushed yourself as an unbiassed arbitrator. Your pro- 
fessions of impartiality only served to render you the more sus- 
pected. You were not trusted, because you were not believed. 
This is the cause of the failure of your attempts, and appears to 
be a secret to no one but yourself. 

When it is recollected, that I abstained from publishing a sin- 
gle line on the controversy, which agitates St. Mary's Church, 
until called out by an address specially directed, by you, to the 
catholic clergy of Philadelphia, what must the public think of 
the atrocious temper of the man, who, in his Rejoinder to my re- 
ply, can venture to commit these words to print? " I presume, be- 
fore I have done with him, I shall be able to present such views 
to his admirers and the public, as will make his heart ache." 
What notion must you have formed, on the state of public feel- 
ing and opinion in this country, when you gave expression to a 
thought so malignant? but, you do not know the materials of 



( 28 ) 

which that heart is formed, if you cherish the hope of enjoying 
its sufferings. It has nothing to fear from you. It has nothing 
to fear, and little to hope, from the world. If you had the power 
to do what you threaten, " my admirers and the public" would be 
at a loss to discover, why you should turn aside to play the execu- 
tioner, instead of answering, as you had promised, the arguments 
in my reply. A vulgar mind finds it easy to utter foul aspersions, 
for, in doing so, it follows its natural bent. 

You call my defence of episcopacy knight-errantry. It cer- 
tainly is, at this moment, a very unpromising service, and, to a 
mind like yours, it will, no doubt, appear unwise to have engaged 
in it. When truth becomes unpopular, it requires some gene- 
rosity of spirit to stand by her side, and share her lot in good re- 
port and evil report. Calculators of a certain class consider 
this romantic. As you have read history, you are not to be in- 
formed that the vile, the cunning, and the selfish, have, at all 
times, pointed the finger of scorn at honesty, and, when they 
could, oppressed it. My defence of episcopacy is an act of du- 
ty, and the contemptuous term which you employ to qualify such 
an act, reflects no credit on you as a christinn or a man. I have 
nothing in me of that spirit, which provides for its own inter- 
ests, by a timely abandonment of principle. Nothing of that vul- 
gar and ungenerous politician, who judges the value of a cause, 
not by its merits, but by its success. Who, when he thought the 
party, to which he had attached himself, was becoming unpopu- 
lar and sinking, affected alarm for the country; and wisely 
sought to secure the friendship of those, who had been his politi- 
cal enemies, as soon as he had convinced himself they must come 
into power. Such was the man who, when the storm lowered 
over the democratic administration, shortly after the commence- 
ment of the late war, advised the resignation of Mr. Madison to 
make room for Mr. King. There was no knight-errantry in that, 
but there was in it a good deal of that provident foresight, which 
succeeds in the world and laughs at principle. Such was the 
man who, when the artillery on the lakes had burst the cloud 
which hung over the administration, suddenly wheeled about 
and with a power of face which deserves immortality, covered 
his double apostacy under the olive branch. No other than a 



( ** ) 

classical mind could have found its way through such difficulties, 
and the mediator took his plan from the prince of Latin poets: — 



If neither piety, nor heaven's command, 

Can gain my passage to the Stygian strand, 

This fatal present shall prevail, at least — 

Then showed the magic branch, concealed within his vest. 

Virgii. 

But, honest consistency is worth a thousand olive branches. It 
may be laughed at; it may be called knight-errantry: but there is 
that within it, which does not depend on victories by lake or land. 
It does not watch the shiftings of fortune, its movements are not 
regulated by interest but by honour. Cato is an example of ho- 
nest consistency. The Vicar of Bray was an olive branch man, 
but a fair, unaffected, unmasked one. 

You say " I have wantonly and wickedly dragged you into the 
arena." Sir, neither you nor I can impose on the public, and 
when you made this charge, you did not expect to be believed. 
You do not imagine that the people of Philadelphia could have 
forgotten, within a few weeks, which of us first entered the are- 
na, on this controversy. You addressed a pampMet to the Catho- 
lic clergy of this city, on a question deeply affecting their Reli- 
gion. They considered your views of the subject erroneous, your 
arguments bad, your principles unsound, your statements partial, 
and the whole tendency of your publication hostile to a cause r 
which, as honest men and Catholic priests, they are pledged to 
defend at all earthly hazards. We answered your call and fol- 
lowed you to the arena, and the public will not pronounce it 
wanton wickedness to have done so. You hobbled into the arena 
a second time, not to defend your address, not to sustain the 
cause of your friends, but to fling slanderous aspersions on one, 
who merely did what it would be a crime not to have done, who 
defended the truth, refuted your arguments, detected your arti- 
fice, pulled off your mask, and chastised your arrogance. 

You say "you are credibly informed that Mr. Harrold has re- 
peatedly boasted, that if he has not written me down, he will" 
The sagacious Episcopalian has looked through you, and touched 
the spring which sets you in motion. *« Some cogging, cozening 
slave, some busy unprincipled flatterer; some intriguing partizan 
without pretensions to religion or morality, moves you to action." 



C 25 J 

Sir, the designing persons, who play on your nerves in this way, 
are consulting their own interests, and care little about your cha- 
racter. They avail themselves of your infirmity, and when you. 
make a noise, their purpose is answered. What honour could I win 
by a victory over one, whose whole life presents an unbroken 
series of literary drubbings? Is there a point about you, which is 
not so thickened by wound over wound, that it would turn the 
edge of satire however well tempered? Cobbet, Duane, Brutus, 
Goldsborough, Garnett, and a long line of anonymous archers, 
have not taught you discretion. You still thrust your head into 
every hornet's nest to which your flatterers find it their interest to 
lead you, and when you are stung and the public is laughing, you 
roar out that you have been " wantonly and wickedly dragged into 
the arena." The complaint is a just one, but the * cogging, 
cozening slave" must answer it; for he dragged you into the arena, 
and I merely followed you. Apropos — is it true that you and 
Porcupine Cobbet shook hands and dined together, when he was 
last in this country? If so, it does you credit, and, no doubt, 
will be mentioned in after ages, as a memorable instance of 
generous forgiveness. What leaves the act all whiteness on 
your side is, that you did not admit him to tire honour of your in- 
timacy, until he had cleared himself from the charge of having, 
like other folks, sought a recreant retreat, when the cause of his 
party became a cause of danger. You did not admit him to the hon- 
our of your friendship, until he had cleared him self from the 
charge of swindling, urged against him by Sir Francis Burdett, 
the purest political character in England. You could forgive an 
enemy, you could be hospitable to a stranger, but the hand of 
Douglas could not touch a dishonoured thing. 

You express your determination to settle down on the arena 
and " if victory must come," you give me this discouraging no- 
tice, " I shall die hai d." " He shall not die said my uncle Toby" 
and I say ditto to the humane assurance. So far am I from think- 
ing of writing you down, or tempting you to bivouac on the are- 
na, that I have resolved to write you up, by compelling you to 
improve your style, arrange your materials, and in working them 
up for the public eye, display, for the future, the appearance of a 
reasoning mind. I intend to support your claim to the title of 
Franklin the second, to which you very justly aspire. What has 
the American worthy achieved, that you have not surpassed? what 



( 26 ) 

can his admirers advance to bar your right to the inheritance of 
that name? Franklin was a kind of literary Universalis, so are you? 
and a prophet into the bargain. Franklin dashed the sceptre from 
a tyrant's grasp, and made his country free---you have broken the 
crozier, and made "the reign of justice co-equal with the globe." 
Franklin played with the riving bolt as with an innocent thing — 
You sent up your kite into the electric cloud which overhung St* 
Mary's, and down came the fulmen ecdesiasiicum harmless as the 
dew drop. Ben was a man proverbially placid. You merely pre- 
tend to be angry* and only when the cause of religion justifies 
you in assuming the appearance. Franklin was a diplomatist and 
in the old vulgar way accredited by his country. The Dove-like 
bearer of the Olive branch is accredited by nature, a heaven- 
born negociator. All this we can establish "by plain facts and 
fair deductions," and should it be necessary, we shall find no dif- 
ficulty in getting a competent number of swearers to remove every 
doubt. Should any future libeller of our country laugh at the 
softness of the Irish head, I shall place your new title in the Vin- 
dicijp, Hibernicse, and the land of unrivalled talent will be more 
than vindicated. 

But to secure the object we both hold in view, \ve must be a 
little more on our guard against the snarling critics* the intole- 
rant logicians, and the numberless herd of worthless rivals, who 
are ever envious of the great. It may hence be necessarry to re- 
vise your works, and I purpose to devote my leisure hours to that 
pleasing employment Your Vindicise has attracted my notice in 
a special manner, and if patriotism, philosophy, theology, and fine 
writing can secure to any man a bright name with posterity, 1 
think I might insure your title to earthly immortality, from the 
samples of each which I shall select from that production. Per- 
mit me to request the name of the Catholic clergyman who was 
executed in your own time, for having married a Protestant and 
Roman Catholic. I promise to keep the secret as well as it has 
been kept in Ireland within my recollection. The double dedi- 
cation of the Vindicise is a masterpiece. Among the other worthies 
to whom you inscribe the work, I find the name of Epaminondas, 
and as there is some doubt whether you mean the Theban or the 
Irishman of that name, I should thank you to enable me to satisfy 
the public. One word more on this book. I would advise a change 
in some words which are lengthened beyond the endurance of 



( * ) 

modern usage. This, for example, in page 376, " Never-enough- 
to-be -execrated." A word of ten syllables is too much for the 
weak organs of these degenerate days. 

Should you take the fisheries of America under your protec- 
tion (and what may we not expect from your untiring pen ami 
your active patriotism?) do not forget to notice the superior quali- 
ties of the Philadelphia Tench. You cannot be at a loss for facts 
on the subject while Pacificus is alive. That noted epicure, Sir 
Wm. Howe can furnish you with some valuable information. This 
fish can flourish only in ponds, is, by nature, an enemy to a free 
stream, and would perish at once in ocean liberty. 

I know you would take it as a kind act in any one to point out 
those little blemishes in your works, which may easily escape a 
mind intent on great things. Indeed the public is more concern- 
ed in the matter than you can be, for, your fame infixed. Your 
great work on the existing tariff is likely (as Epaminondas 
thinks) to commence a new era in political economy. Some peo- 
ple think that the word irrefragable should not be employed to 
qualify facts, and call it nonsense. I would not appear to agree 
with them, but, entre nous, you had better leave it out in the next 
edition, as there is some truth in the remark. There is another 
objection to the word. They say it endangers the teeth and the 
people of this country cannot afford to run any risk in that way. 
They complain of the many items in the title page and compare 
it to the "coat of divers colours" which drew on the patriarchal 
boy the jealousy of his brethren. What would become of us if a 
similar cause exposed the young political economist to a fate so 
disastrous? Look to it in time, and, though he is the son of your 
old age, suffer not an indiscreet partiality to call down upon him 
the enmity of his brethren. Some ill natured remarks have been 
made on the long list of names prefixed to some of your works. 
I insisted that you had never sought the opinions of these gentle- 
men — that they were sent to you unasked — that you would not 
publish as a deliberate recommendation, the praise whith common 
politeness would not withhold — in short, that there was nothing 
of the shop in the proceeding. All would not do. They viewed 
it as a money -making scheme, and compared your show of names 
to the well known stratagem which the venders of quack medi- 
cines resort to in order to get rid of their stuff. You now see some 
of the difficulties we shall have to contend with, in making good 



•28 > 

/our claim to the title of Franklin the Second, but zeal can work 
miracles, and labour can remove mountains. Your literary life is 
in my keeping. Your fame is my property. 



■mi 'satis est, si, 



Traditum ab antiquis morem servare, tuamque, 
Dum custodis eges, vitam faraamque tueri 
Incolumem possim. Hor. Satyr. 4. 






wg 







3BBIP3»^ 



1 



| Catijolw Oman's 



If 






c:| 



c;; 



REJOINDER 



BY WILLIAM VINCENT HAROLD, 

pastor in st. mary's, 



primi clypeos mentitaque tela 



Agnoscunt, atque ora sono discordia signant. 

Eneidos, lib, IL 

*s \ ... ?rocch i> egli disarmata ?ede 
in nemica, si riman sospeso; 
U\i& stima ig 1 1 palina, e vili spoglie 

V son tal vantagglo, uom toglie. 

Ge*msalemtne liberata. Canto 7. 



ABBLPHIA; PUBLISHED BY BERNARD DORNES, 



I 






H 



Y\oo 






^v- 



ci c: mk 



5kcc«oK«« c<r <cc 

Sri. C«C C<T '■•> C« 

< occ^cc cc 

«c <: 



3<ccx:<c 

C«TCC<C 

CCCf 

cccc_ 
c&grjC < 

c^ccc :c 



c ^ 



J c?cl S$! 

- -^c<fc C 

^€fcc fe ? < 

I Mice- 
£1 CCCc 

J£l£c< 



SUffiC 






«g# CC-CO 

&CC53xc2e 
S&CCCW 

&.ccccrc<* 



o ccc 

a- 



cccccce 
Htctcxs 



*o<r c|Kffigr< 



ccx: cc c 

^cccc <Xi c 
1^ filter SS5 

cere c cc £&£££- % i £ 

- - ccfecc c ccc CC^<£ £5 

*t cfercc c~<cp:< . 

T- «£ gf§' 



Z CC CC 

O CC cc 
C cc cc 
r cc cc 

;cCXC 



(CC. c 

CCCC 

C • C 

' c < 



<r<CC « 

c<r c 



«£<cC"C«cC. 

recce c ceo ^ 



trace; « 



oc< 

c . ccc cCcc < 

('CCeCC3GC (i 
rceiccc cccc ^ 

c ccro-ccccoc 



:.< € "" <S C; C C 

cc c crc c c c 






c C "C 

-Or c 

^cc c 

CO 

" <rc 
^ CB 

"CCo 



^CCtCiCgC 



cc^^c: c 



fF^ 



rC ec 
c CC 



7 < 4BCTC 
C <PC< 

«:c 



ace 

-CC C 
c*CC 

•<C"< 

cCC 

^1 



cc; c 

<?*C C 

c 
C cc< 



C '^ C.f c 0«?„ C ■ 

c <i <lcc 6 c <r<cr -C- ^ 

C Ci <f< <? «i«Tc 

« ,< c «3 
CCC C fCC^C 

rccicc 1 '. ' 

CC C cccv c 

cc C^ccvo 
XCC<cC<SCi 

x :o<£ccic?cCc: 
;ccc cc 

CC C^c^fec 

ccc CcC ; « 

L-CC ^ 
cc C CC C ■ 

^CCCCCC^cCi 
cc C CCC CC ^-C ( 

C cc c 
CC c ccc cc 
cc C CC C CC< 
ccc ccc ccc 

C C C <«3C 



c:c cc 

CC5 CcC 



CC^CC (CCCCC 



-mzt'3 



c cc« 
CC 

f 



CC CC: 



W8t-z&*$gm 



a cc 

CCCCc 



CC <c 



re ^c, 



c C cc <4g£ 
C C C< C<S£ 



c. .Jt5"<C((cC **£ 






ISC. <- 

c^-5 clc^ i 
: «ct<* <■ ^^^ C 






C; ^ 
I c ^ 



cm, 
cc x« 

"C( 
CC CCOC^JCCc c 
CC CC< cc«: C Q C 

cc c<\ < cc c 9 5 

CC CCc^C" ccc c- 

CC cc% cc 
CC fC'C cc 

CC^'J cc 

O « s^:. <: c 
CC Ci-'< Ccc 

cc ^. ^^c 5 



x crcc 



■JrCC 
..-■CjdCCC 

or?: ■ 



CC i 
CK _ 



¥c c e cc «rc CC^<.« 
ccc ccc ccc<x<^M 

e 2 x c cc ccccc • 

!CCC& ccc cec(<C^ 



C &c^«:c 

hcC «C C C£X c c<^ «C < 

cr «cxcdGC <^ cc vC 
I A* ^c ccc C cc< c< c 
fcr «rc CC1C«J ggjj 

xr «cc <cc c c ct£<c 

C vCrCCCL vGcC 

= C ' CSt C CC <5 c<l 

c <rce 'CCt4 c- 

C CCC Cf CCCcc^ 

r cc < CCtccKC 

C <- C_ C CC C.<C C<C 



jc cc c 

r <c C 

<rc 



< "CCC < 

t ccC < 

:C cc 

C<C « 

i ccC 
'CCC • 

cc<n 

ccc i 
:cC <« 



-/ cCC tf€ CC C < 

ccc '<l c«r cc <: 

;. cc acrcecaec 
cc ccc ce 

cCCCCC 

•tec <tCCCMZT C % % 
cc c c 
ccc «£<ce 

ccc COC c c« 

C<3CCCdjC (i:C< 
ccc cj&ac c c 

CCC CCCCjCZc c rccc 
cot cgrc < f-«st 

rcc <aacr~ c •'■ ^sctc 

rCCCC^Cc ct<*£c 
(CCCc^Cc :cfOTC 

ccc ere c caer 



ccc; . Cc 

coccrcec 



.CCC 
eCc 



c ccac: 

c c 

eccc: 

C?(CJL 
X CCC. 
> CC< C3c 
Cs CCC 

C CCv 

a ccc 

c 'jm~~&r 



I c«p 

~CC vCCK 



cee 

:c cc.ee 

:c cc<x 

cc cc 



(CCC 
CCCC 

; cccc 
c c ccc 

t c c.cc 
c crcs 

c <r 

c C «. 
' CC <"" c2 

C<I • 

•c CC 

"< •: C. C Cc 

(CCCC < 
CCC CC I 

CCC cc < 
ccc c c < 






cccccctr^ 

cccc^crcc: 

^ <cc 



ccc c < 
7«rcc cc« 
Z ccc cc 
'Ccc cc 

sr <cc^ c< 
^ ccc cc 

"CCC 'CC 

s^ceg cc 
crccc a ^ 

«Tcjt:c cc 
XCCC 
CCCC ex 

cccc ex 



cc;wr< c c< 

< CC4CCCV CCcC 

,- cc^terc eject 

cc- 
cc 
ccjmm cccc^ 

CC«Ccx CCCS 

-CjCLCVcc CCCC 
CC1CCC CCCC 

^cc«cc<c 
c ccc&c crc ccc 

c ccp cc ccc 
i.cCC Cc ere 

c< c CCC cc ccc 

c c-cjc?' cc cee 
c. c<jCiCCcr""ccx^ 
cc c^m cc ccr? ; 
e ore ee: ccc 

cc caeca ee ccc 



C C<C <£j C 

C ; CC: <S < 

:'c ;. <r<rc c cc c"<3 

e ^ccc <e c c <r^^ 
^«c<Ccc 

i'cccccec 
icc:.c^ co 
^:cz<^^.ceec cSr>c 

",S^ce 

^. CC c cc c 

c^cC<C cc cc C 

-cee . c«r< 



rr<ac 

:c<ij 



- c>c •««:• <:c 
<C<JC cc 



•e< cccc 

cc«..< 
re c ccc-'C-, 

Ccc CC 

^ece <rc^ am-*. 

J C C CCc < 
ICC cc cc 
C G C CC <C 

rc c m<c 

p CCC 
*%-. c "c <kst<l 
c "c. c cc c 

c c c qc« 

^ccccco 

recce- 

c c ccc e 

rc e C^ c cc^ X 

CLccc ccc e 

~C: ce c e c 

recc c cc < 

Ccccccc 

rcCC ccc c 

^ccccrcc. c <c.' 

- rccc cecccc 



cc ccictr- 



' ■ C.€C 


ccc cc 


c< c^cecc 


eOBK 


ICC 




^cc CTd 


c^cm 


CC7 


CCC'l 


€XH 


cexe 


oc 


Odes: 


cc 


Cc^CCS 


:cccc 


cc^gctc: 


CCC 


e«:cc 


.Cccc 


^■aP 3 ^ 


CCiCC 


e«^^ccc 


1 C CC 


e«:ccs 


LC.4CS 


ccrcc 


: cc: c 


cccrrccc 


:cc 


ccc." cc< 


ICC 


-CC CCC 


c c:c 


ccc ccc 


ccc 



Cc ccc 
CC CCC 



r<^cecre^gr'"< 
ccicccre^Krcc 
cere ccc «ki c 

acrccc«rc 

^cciccc^Krce 



ac«c: cc 
cccrr: €L 

. cccccC c< 
C r<s -«sr_ c 

r cc-ccc: ci 

CCCC c^C 

c - ccc: <c< 

< <■ «r <?c 

c<c: <SC 

cccc ^e 
ce <^c: 

cc OdC'c 

-c <aco 
x^ .OCX. 

; \«< cc: cc" 



^< c^OC 
CCcCCc 
X ^CCcc 

5? «c c/ 

C /CCc 

vc: • ci cc 

CcC Ccc 
CCCcc 



CC CCC cc 4CT <C CC 

'(XcxnCCCCC 



ccc- ccc 

cc.ccrc 



^ C Ccc - 

crc^ccc c 



cc cere oc crc ccc 



ccc ce cccc cc 

(CCCC COICC 

(CCCC cglc cr 
cee ee c^.c cr 

(C CC cdC -^ v .. 
" cc c cc c «c C Cc 
1 CC C cc, c €LC -; <£s 

CC C Cc C^CLC, ^c 
r CC C C cr r - - <C C ^C 

C Ccc C 

^cccec 

^-«. CCC c 

m. ccc c 

C< C! 



^9P>*g£s « cm <c c c c cc c 

CC CC C^L. C CCC CCCr C C C C CC C 

5<^ej^ccdc<c c3ic c:cccc 
pec ee cccc ec ccee ccccc 

ice ccx -_r 

cc ccc *. 

<cc^ c:c^ 

C cc 

ccc c cc c 

CCC CCC 

C.CC CCCc 

Cee ccccee < 



c d. 


.CCdCC 


cc « 


>< c c c 


see* 


c< eccc 


CC 1 


^ c c <x«| 


rcc 


«C c: c c« 


CCCt 


c t oaa 


ce 


C: ccar 


cc 


C (Of 


CCCC 


c c<3«r 


CC cc 


CC CCIK 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



029 819 570 7 



